I do not have a scientific background, this theory is not meant to put people in depression but to make them think.

We are already in Abrupt Climate change. The last months and years all were warmer than normal on a global scale, most of the time records were broken. Climate change is a chain-reaction with feedbacks that influence the proces.

The temperature-rise is not spread even-the poles are warming much faster than other area's. This has to do with both the gulfstream transporting warmer ocean water, warmer rivers wich bring warmer water to the Arctic, warmer air pushud towards the poles by more storms. Also more open water means that sunlight is not reflected by ice but water is reabsorbing the heat from the sun.

In the Arctic rising temperatures effect the soil. Perma-frost is defrozen, seabed is no longer covered by ice. Both means methane gets released. Methane traps warmth stronger than "air" does, so an increase of methane (and CO, CO2 etc) means a temperature rise.

The amount of methane and other "greenhouse gas" that can be released is that large that it dwarfs the production of human made greenhouse gasses. Yet we unlocked the proces, started the chain-reaction.

The further the temperatures rise the more methane (etc) is released. At a certain point I expect that the release can become more violent, explosive.

The proces of melt, warming in the (ant)arctic will cause more air to move towards the poles-more and stronger storms. A proces wich will widen further the inflow of heat towards the poles-from deep seawater, surface sea water, also now the air at all levels will warm up.

This will increase the melt in both Greenland and the Antarctic-allthough that melt could cool seawater the influx of warmth will get that strong the cooling effect will not last long. Landmasses will start rising with the release of pressure from the (land)ice wich will bring further release of methane, CO(2) etc, volcanic reactions, earthquakes etc.

The process-escalation will be a proces of months, maybe even weeks, once a treshold is passed. Such a tipping point could be an ice-free Arctic but large wildfires producing a lot of carbon, methane and warmth (also via rivers going into the Arctic ocean).

A particle of methane can absorp up to 105 times the amount of heat (for a short term) as a particle of oxygen. You need a moment of "ignition" to start the proces.

Further temperature rise is caused by nuclear waste in a.o. Greenland supposed to be covered by ice. Also in the Pacific sealevel-rise will mean that storagesites for nuclear waste end up under water. Above that several reactors keep leeking large amounts of radio-activity (= producing warmth) into the oceans. (Not only Fukushima but other sites in Japan, North Korea, the US, France etc.)

The "hockystick model" is making clear that feedback-loops will cause escalating temperature rise.

The Arctic may not get without all of the sea-ice this summer. But the basis for next melting-season is very bad. Unless the winter will restore a lot of sea-ice chances for a ice-free Arctic in 2017 are very large.

This winter (in the northern hemisphere) will be the meltingseason for the Antarctic. Focus was on Western Antarctica but it appears that also the eastern part is effected more and more by climate change. Not only warmer sea-water under the sea-ice eroding it from below, more storms eroding the snow and ice on the surface.

Increase of melt in one pole effects the sealevel-rise and temperature and therefor also the other pole.

Que sera, sera, Whatever will be, will be, The future is not ours to see, Que sera, sera !

What this means is that it may be only a matter of time before we see the loss of an enormous chunk of Larsen C — a historic event that would bring to mind the losses of the Larsen A ice shelf in 1995 and the sudden breakup of Larsen B in 2002. When that last event happened, the National Snow and Ice Data Centerremarked that Earth had lost a major feature that had “likely existed since the end of the last major glaciation 12,000 years ago.”

“We previously showed that this will remove between nine and twelve percent of the ice shelf area and leave the ice front at its most retreated position ever,” write Adrian Luckman, Daniela Jansen, Martin O’Leary and members of the Project MIDAS team. “The trajectory of the rift now implies that the higher of these two estimates is more likely.”

The amount of ice that could be lost would be around 6,000 square kilometers, or 2,316 square miles — nearly the size of Delaware, said O’Leary, a glaciologist at Swansea University and one of the team’s members, by email.

When ice shelves lose large chunks, it does not raise sea level because these bodies are already afloat. However, the loss of an ice shelf can speed up the seaward flow of the non-floating glacial ice behind it, and this ice can in turn contribute to sea-level rise. Researchers have estimated that the loss of all the ice that the Larsen C ice shelf currently holds back would raise global sea levels by 10 centimeters, or just under 4 inches.

Granted, there is at least an argument to be made that even a large loss of ice from Larsen C would not be immediately bad news for the global sea level. A study earlier this year in Nature Climate Change looked at ice shelves around Antarctica to determine how much area they could lose without ceasing to form their crucial function of buttressing glaciers and holding them back, and found that Larsen C actually has a lot of “passive” ice that it can lose without major consequences.

Que sera, sera, Whatever will be, will be, The future is not ours to see, Que sera, sera !

Temperatures globally are rising much faster than ever before in the earths history. This may indicate that a sealevelrise of metres will not be a matter of centuries. Both Greenland and Antarctica (West Antarctic Ice Sheet, Larsen-C) are in a condition that significant melt could be on its way. We have passed "tipping points The present storms in polar regions are bad news.

Rahmstorf, Michael Mann and other group of scientists are claiming that there might still be time to react on climate change. Paul Beckwith, Guy McPherson and others are less hopefull.

They all agree that action must be taken on the short term to reduce greenhouse gas. The increase in numbers of extreme weather events and "faster than expected" phenomena make me belief that Paul Beckwith, Sam Carana and Guy Mc Pherson with their expectations of abrupt events on the short term (before 2030) may be correct.

We are now in a phase of "climate-chaos" but moving towards "climate collapse". In the chaos-phase extreme flooding, droughts, storms etc. In the collapse-phase sealevel-rise will take effect, even more heat, evaporation-so more extreme flooding "rivers-in-the-sky".

See also http://cci-reanalyzer.org/forecasts/#ARC-LEA Climate reanalyzer can give an indication of most likely weatherscenario's for the coming week. They have a global view, weather in the Arctic will influence weather in Europe, Asia, America. (Will hurricane Gaston hit western Europe by september 4 ?)

Que sera, sera, Whatever will be, will be, The future is not ours to see, Que sera, sera !

Looking at NHC http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/ there is hurricane Gaston (on its way to the west of Ireland in the first week of september, than moving north towards Norway and the Arctic further disrupting sea-ice ? or will it reach Portugal ?) tropical depressions 8 and 9 and two disturbances http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/gtwo.php all in the north-Atlantic. In the pacific Japan has had several cyclones with lots of rain and wind-also in the Fukushima area.

For the US, will there be a larger repeat of Kathrina in a wider area ? How will Florida-Louisiana and Texas-coast (with a lot of oil-installations-also in the Gulf of Mexico itself) deal with the storms ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oL7GOG_bNfQ.

From Sam Carana on facebook about the Arctic:

Storms over the Arctic Ocean (top), causing rain (green) and snow (blue) to fall to the north of Greenland (bottom).

Rain can have a devastating impact on the sea ice, due to kinetic energy breaking up the ice as it gets hit. This can fragment the ice, resulting in water that is warmer than the ice to melt it both at the top and at the sides, in addition to melting that occurs at the bottom due to ocean heat warming the ice from below and melting that occurs at the top due to sunlight warming the ice from above.

Furthermore, where the rainwater stays on top of the sea ice, pools of water will form, fed by rainwater and meltwater. This will darken the surface. Melting sea ice is also darker in color and, where sea ice melts away altogether, even darker water will emerge. As a result, less sunlight is getting reflected back into space and more sunlight is instead absorbed.

DutchJosh, I really hate to tell you this but climate change is real but it is not caused by humans. We know that just 12,000 to 14,000 years ago the entire mid west of the US was covered by an ice sheet up to a mile thick. It has since melted with no influence from humans.

We also know that 65 million years ago, the areas that we now know as Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Alberta Canada were tropical areas because the very large plant eating dinosaurs are being found there,so at some time in history these areas were tropical and they are now very cold

Climate change is very real, but it is not and it has never been caused by humans and it can not be changed by humans. But many very rich people are making billions of dollars off climate change technology.

All that we can do about climate change is watch it and get out of the way.

Why don't you people wise up and stop the bulls**t.

During the last ice age, the Persian Gulf did not even exist. Johnray1

Johnray - the argument is not that climate change happens. We have undeniable proof that natural cycles have swung Earth's climate from temperate periods to ice ages many times in the past. It's the greatly increased rate of change that indicates something is different this time around. And when those changes seem to show a correlation with human consumption of fossil fuels, I think it would be folly to ignore it and simply write it off as natural variations. We owe that much to future generations at least.

Personally, I think we've royally screwed the pooch and set in motion events that can't be reversed. CO2 started us down the road, but I think methane and water vapor are going to be the primary drivers of any future climatic change. Good luck fixing that one.

And for those that don't believe changes in our atmosphere can have that much of an effect - look at Venus. Twice as far from the sun as Mercury (and 2/3 the distance of the Earth), but hotter thanks to a thick atmosphere loaded with greenhouse gases. Almost 500 degrees Celsius on a bad day

"Buy it cheap. Stack it deep""Any community that fails to prepare, with the expectation that the federal government will come to the rescue, will be tragically wrong." Michael Leavitt, HHS Secretary.

I have my doubts about the ratio between the changes we instigated and those which are part of a natural cycle, but Jacksdad is right. We are certainly part of the problem. AND when the methane hydrates go (more than the small bit they already have) we will be midstream on a famous brown river praying for a paddle.

Most of the civilizations of the past that suddenly disappeared did so as a result of climate change. No, not manmade that time, but bad enough. With us adding to a nasty point in a natural cycle, the prospects seem very bleak.

Volcanic-heat can not explain the melt since the volcanic regions in Antarctica are not under the melting glaciers. But less pressure from landice does increase the risks for earthquakes. Also glaciers can collapse when the bases is "eaten away" by meltwater.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XLk2VjsWA8 Dutchsinse mentions increased risks for M6 earthquakes all around the Pacific. Of course the M6.2 in the Fukushima area proberbly means more radio-activity in both oceans and atmosphere. Radio activity = warmth.

http://cci-reanalyzer.org/forecasts/#WORLD-CED looking at global-temperature-anomaly is shocking ! Given also increase in methane and CO2-temperatures only going up faster climatechange is escalating. (And you can not blame Trump for that-the world has failed, maybe confronted with disaster people will wake up and react.)

You can post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou can vote in polls in this forum